Should We Defund “Bad Police” or Reform “Bad Policing”? Examining Person-Centered and Act-Based Moral Evaluations of Police and Policing Policy Preferences

Jason R. Silver, Richard K. Moule
{"title":"Should We Defund “Bad Police” or Reform “Bad Policing”? Examining Person-Centered and Act-Based Moral Evaluations of Police and Policing Policy Preferences","authors":"Jason R. Silver, Richard K. Moule","doi":"10.1177/00111287231210838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite widespread calls to defund or reform police, little research has explored the factors shaping public support for these proposals. We draw from person-centered morality theory to argue that person-centered moral evaluations of police (moral character beliefs) drive support for defunding police, while act-based moral evaluations of police (procedural justice) drive support for reforming police. Using data from a national survey ( N = 1,225), exploratory factor analyses showed that these moral evaluations of police were empirically distinct. OLS regression results indicated that perceptions of “bad police” (negative person-centered evaluations) more strongly predicted support for defunding policies (abolition and reduced funding of police), while perceptions of “bad policing” (negative act-based evaluations) more strongly predicted support for due process and racial justice reforms.","PeriodicalId":507410,"journal":{"name":"Crime & Delinquency","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crime & Delinquency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231210838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite widespread calls to defund or reform police, little research has explored the factors shaping public support for these proposals. We draw from person-centered morality theory to argue that person-centered moral evaluations of police (moral character beliefs) drive support for defunding police, while act-based moral evaluations of police (procedural justice) drive support for reforming police. Using data from a national survey ( N = 1,225), exploratory factor analyses showed that these moral evaluations of police were empirically distinct. OLS regression results indicated that perceptions of “bad police” (negative person-centered evaluations) more strongly predicted support for defunding policies (abolition and reduced funding of police), while perceptions of “bad policing” (negative act-based evaluations) more strongly predicted support for due process and racial justice reforms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们应该资助 "坏警察 "还是改革 "坏警务"?考察以人为本和以行为为基础的警察道德评价及警务政策偏好
尽管取消或改革警察部门的呼声很高,但很少有研究探讨影响公众支持这些提议的因素。我们借鉴了以人为本的道德理论,认为以人为本的警察道德评价(道德品质信念)推动了对取消警察经费的支持,而以行为为基础的警察道德评价(程序正义)推动了对警察改革的支持。利用一项全国性调查的数据(N = 1,225),探索性因素分析表明,这些对警察的道德评价在经验上是截然不同的。OLS 回归结果表明,对 "坏警察 "的看法(以人为中心的负面评价)更强烈地预测了对取消资助政策(废除和减少对警察的资助)的支持,而对 "坏警务 "的看法(基于行为的负面评价)更强烈地预测了对正当程序和种族正义改革的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
When the World Falls Apart: How People Make Decisions in the Times of War Community-Level Relationships Between Homelessness and Crime in Finland Sensible Pretrial Reform: The Importance of Accounting for Risk of Violence in Judicial Release Decisions Community-Level Relationships Between Homelessness and Crime in Finland Sensible Pretrial Reform: The Importance of Accounting for Risk of Violence in Judicial Release Decisions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1